View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Agile Specification by Example |  Systems Thinking Future Reality Tree |  Systems Thinking Evaporating Cloud |  Systems Thinking Intervention Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When business rules need to become precise, it ties language, example, and test together. It sorts work by value, risk, and delivery ability. The result is captured as an Example Table and Acceptance Tests. | A Future Reality Tree shows how desired actions are meant to lead to a better system state. The method checks whether a path of change holds together logically before time flows into implementation. | The method makes visible why two seemingly incompatible demands arise and which assumption must be tested to resolve the conflict. | Intervention Mapping translates a need for change into a planned, evaluable program. The method connects target group, determinants, actions, and measurement into a traceable chain. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | Medium | High |
Timedifferent | 60-90 min pro Feature | 2-4 h | 60-120 min | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 3-6 | 3-8 | 2-8 | 4-12 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Example Table, Acceptance Tests | Future Reality Tree, Negative Branches, Assumption List, Improved Injections | Conflict Cloud, Assumption List, Breakthrough Ideas, Next Experiments | Logic Model, Change Objectives, Intervention Components, Evaluation Plan |
Tagsno overlap | AgileRequirementsExamplesBehavior-Driven Development | Theory of ConstraintsSystems thinkingChange | Theory of ConstraintsAssumptionsSystems thinking | ChangeSystems thinkingCapability |